G.R. No. 243522, February 19, 2019
Lagman, et al. v. Medialdea, et al.

FACTS

Through Resolution of Both Houses No. 6, Congress voted to extend the declaration of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao for the entirety of 2019. This prompted petitioners to challenge the extension before the Supreme Court, invoking its constitutional duty under Section 18, Article VII to review the sufficiency of the factual basis. The Government, through the Solicitor General, initially sought to present its evidence—primarily periodic reports from the Department of National Defense—in an executive session, citing national security concerns over highly sensitive and confidential matters.
The Court directed the submission of these reports in sealed envelopes for preliminary assessment. After review and an executive session involving petitioners’ counsel, the Government eventually consented to make the reports public, and they were provided to petitioners on the afternoon of the scheduled oral arguments. During these arguments, military officials testified that rebel and terrorist capabilities in Mindanao had been significantly degraded, with one stating that a 70% reduction in capability would warrant a recommendation to lift martial law.

ISSUE

Whether the factual basis presented by the Government is sufficient to justify the extension of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao for the period of January 1 to December 31, 2019.

RULING

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Jardeleza voted to grant the petitions and deny the extension. The legal logic centers on the Court’s constitutional duty to conduct a meaningful, independent review of the factual sufficiency, not merely to defer to the executive or legislative branches. Jardeleza argued that the Government’s own evidence demonstrated a material degradation of the rebellion in Mindanao throughout 2018 due to military successes, thereby failing to meet the constitutional requirement that martial law and suspension of the writ be necessary for public safety. He emphasized that the rebellion’s scale had diminished from its 2017 peak.
Furthermore, Jardeleza criticized the Court’s procedural handling, particularly the initial allowance of in camera evidence presentation. He asserted that transparency must be the rule in such grave matters, with confidentiality as a narrow exception requiring specific justification, to ensure full government accountability. The opinion also highlighted concerns over the accuracy and baseline data within the Government’s reports, as scrutinized by another Justice, concluding that the evidence did not substantiate the need for a further extension. The dissent ultimately posits that the Court must actively scrutinize the factual bases, not adopt a posture of “permissive deference,” to faithfully discharge its constitutional check on executive and legislative power.